Karnataka High Court
Roopa W/O Pralad Pujar vs Kakarla Damoar Chowdary on 10 March, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN
M.F.A.NO.102096/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. ROOPA W/O PRALAD PUJAR,
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
2. BHUMIKA D/O PRALAD PUJAR,
AGE 7 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
SINCE APP.NO.2 IS MINOR,
REP. BY M/G APP.NO.1.
3. PARVATEVVA W/O NINGAPPA PUJAR,
AGE : 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
4. NINGAPPA TIMMANNA PUJAR,
SINCE DEAD HIS LR'S ARE ALREADY
ON RECORD.
ALL ARE R/O : SHIRUR,
TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S.SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
:2:
AND:
1. KAKARLA DAMOAR CHOWDARY
S/O SURYANARAYAN,
AGE : 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT : H.NO.4-208, IV T H WARD,
BETHAMCHERLA, (V & M),
DIST: KARNOOL,
STATE : ANDRAPRADES-518599.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580029.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADV. FOR R.2)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC.NO.253/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-II, BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, B.A.PATIL, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
:3:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal has been listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and award passed by the Member, M.A.C.T-II, Bagalkot, ("Tribunal" for short) in M.V.C.No.253/2014 dated 21.02.2017.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and respondent-Insurance Company.
4. The gist of the case is that one Pralad son of Nigappa Pujar was working as a manager in M/s Sai Minerals Factory situated at Gundanapalli R.C. Shirur village. On 07.03.2014 at about 1.00 p.m. Pralad and his colleague had been to the water tank to drink the water, at that time a lorry bearing registration No.AP.21/TU.9459 came :4: rashly and negligently in reverse manner and hit the deceased and as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries including the fracture to lower limbs. Immediately he was shifted to Bhavi Hospital, Bagalkot, and during the course of the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.
5. For having lost the earning member of their family, the appellants-claimants have filed claim petition seeking compensation.
6. The said claim petition has been seriously contested by the respondent-Insurance Company by denying the contents of the same. The Tribunal after recording the evidence of the appellants-claimants dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the appellants-claimants are before this Court.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that, the Tribunal without considering the fact that, though :5: the factory premises is a public place and it is accessible to the public, by relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has wrongly held that, the said place is not a public place and erroneously dismissed the petition.
8. It is his further submission that, no proper issues have been framed. Without any proper issues and without notice to the parties, surprisingly the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, the said place is not a public place and public had no right to access and as such, the appellants-claimants are not entitled to claim compensation.
9. It is his further submission that, the motor vehicles claim petition is a beneficial legislation and the Tribunal ought to have given the benefit by taking into consideration the fact that, the said place is accessible to the public and in that light, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation. In order to substantiate his :6: contention, he has relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of K.Ramesh and others Vs. B.Amarnatha and others passed in M.F.A.No.5110/2009 C/w M.F.A.No.2989/ 2009 (MV) dated 25.04.2013 and another decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. ltd., Vs. Parvathi Devi reported in LAWS(MAD) 1999 4 169 dated 06.04.1999. On all these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to grant adequate compensation.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company vehemently argued and contended that the place of the accident is not a public place as contemplated under section 147 explanation of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint itself shows that the accident itself has taken place inside the factory premises of M/s Sai Minerals Factory. The claimants have not proved the fact that the said :7: accident has taken place at a public place as contemplated under the said Section. By taking into consideration of the said fact, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed petition and there are no good grounds to allow the appeal. On all these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
12. On careful perusal of the records, the place of accident itself is in dispute. Some records say that, the accident has taken place within the premises of M/s Sai Minerals Factory and some other records say that the accident has taken place outside the factory. But the Tribunal under the premise that the said accident has taken place within the premises of M/s Sai Minerals Factory and public had no right at that place and it is not a public place within the meaning of expression :8: defined under Section 2 (34) and also under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In that light, the claim petition came to be dismissed. But before dismissing the claim petition, no issues have been framed with regard to said aspect is concerned. When any issue has been framed by drawing the attention of both the parties to substantiate their case, surprisingly if the said aspect has been discussed and the claim petition is dismissed. Then under such circumstances, it appears to us that, no full opportunity has been given to the parties to substantiate their case in accordance with law.
13. Even as could be seen from the records and objections filed by the respondent, the respondent has also not raised objections and the parties have also not led any evidence. The main issue which has to be emphasized is that, whether the said premises where the accident is said to have been taken place is accessible to the public :9: or not and why the said lorry has come inside the factory and in that regard also no evidence has been brought on record by examining the owner of the factory or some other independent witnesses. In the absence of any such material, now it becomes very difficult to come to any conclusion that whether the said place is public place or not.
14. Under the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that, the matter requires to be remitted back to the Tribunal to give full opportunity to both the parties once again to plead properly with reference to the above observations and thereafter the Tribunal, is directed to decide the issue in accordance with law, then it is going to meet the ends of justice.
15. In that light, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 21.02.2017 passed in MVC.No.253/2014 by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is : 10 : remitted to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as observed by this Court by giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties.
16. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the Tribunal without any further notice on 03.04.2020.
17. Registry is directed to send back the Lower Court Records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE EM/-